John Locke was born in Somerset, England in 1632. "For fifteen years of his life he lived in close association with Shaftesbury, the fiery founder of the Whig party; for another five, which were spent in voluntary exile, he lived in Holland, among the liberal Dutch Calvinists, and in the company of Huguenot refugees who had fled there from France in 1685. When William of Orange landed in England in 1688, Locke soon followed; and in 1690 there appeared from his pen three works which [became] part of the English (and later, American) heritage." (from The Times, 29 August 1932) One of these works was "Two Treatises on Government," the second treatise of which is titled an "Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government" referred to by Jefferson. Summarizing its message:

Algernon Sidney was born in Kent, England ten years before Locke, in 1622. He lived for six years in France with his father, the Earl of Leicester, who served there as Ambassador. Later, as a Colonel in the army, he joined the fight for parliamentary government, taking up arms against King and fought gallantly in the battle of Marston Moor in 1644. Sidney was elected to the famous Long Parliament in 1646. He opposed Cromwell's reign in 1653; and in 1660, after a brief restoration to the Rump Parliament, he chose voluntary exile in Europe when the Commonwealth collapsed under Charles II. It was during this exile that Sidney penned his three volume work, "Discourses Concerning Government" -- a review of government from Biblical through Greek and Roman times to European and English rule -- written in argument against Filmer's Patrircha (which stood for the divine right of Kings).

After wandering about Europe for nearly 20 years, Sidney returned to England and soon worked in cooperation with William Penn to achieve greater freedom of religion in England. Finally, he pursued with other Whigs a strategy to restore an independent Parliament to England under the reign of Charles II. In 1681, after King Charles dismissed Parliament, Sidney joined in a revolutionary plot to restore representative government and was eventually captured and charged with treason. John Locke, who never worked closely with Sidney, was part of the same plot, and he fled from the continent when the conspiracy was discovered. Sidney was not so fortunate, and gave his head for the cause of liberty on December 7, 1683.

Sidney's writings coincide with Locke's in many respects. Sidney advocates natural rights, including liberty as a divine gift to all men. Both men advocate adherence to natural laws. Both agree that government by representation is best. However, Sidney upholds the concept of merit and virtue in leadership while Locke generally denies the right of virtue to govern. (Thomas West, Discourses Concerning Government (Indianapolis, Liberty Fund, Inc., 1996), p. xxiv). Sidney (like Blackstone) teaches that one purpose of government (as it was for the ancients) is to foster virtue and suppress vice. He warns of the harmful consequences to society of allowing corrupt magistrates to govern. To Locke, the ownership and control of property is akin to happiness, whereas with Sidney (as with George Washington) it is virtue that leads to happiness -- both individually and in society. Finally, with Locke political liberty is merely a "fence" protecting man's life, liberty and property, but with Sidney such liberty also includes the greater mission and responsibility of conquering society's wayward passions. (Id.)

When read together (as Jefferson did) the essential principles of liberty merge from a combination of Locke and Sidney: i.e, (1) liberty is of divine origin; (2) liberty is secured by representative government; (3) liberty is maintained by obedience to just laws; (4) liberty is dependent upon virtue; and (5) liberty leads to happiness. These principles underlie America's Declaration of Independence and are inherent in the purposes of the Constitution.

This leads us to the latter three works mentioned by Jefferson which are particular to America.

First, the Declaration of Independence itself needs little explanation, but only a renewed remembrance of the basic principles which it so clearly sets forth:

Wake up the children! Ping your neighbors! Bookmark the references! Look in, all who benefit from the sustaining power of truth, soul, and sacrificed blood, that established your privilege of being American!

All are invited to review authentic American Political Philosophy in this article and by links. Learn (objectively) the historical facts of what America has declared itself to be -- and why. Learn the principles woven into our successful experiment in self governance. Learn the ring of authenticity from the authors. Sense their conviction to self-evident truths. Know it by your "inner sense," as Locke described. Feel free!

(It is good to study the authentic, repeatedly -- the better to discern and declare the differences of counterfeits.)

Our second President, John Adams stated: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Why would Adams declare that our Constitution is made only for a moral people and a religious people?

Thanks for the ping, unspun. Looks like a great read. To be read later; bookmarked and

In response to these rhetorical questions, I propose that liberty is not defined in a sentence, or as a rule -- Liberty is based upon certain principles -- the knowledge and application of which are required to fully comprehend and uphold liberty, respectively.

I'm a freedom-loving atheist but I've come to the conclusion that it's a good thing our Constitution claims that our rights come from "God." Do they? No, how could they, there is no god. BUT.... what that "comes from God" claim does is draw a line in the sand over which our enemies should never step. It marks where we stop negotiating, explaining, reasoning and wheedling... and start shooting. It says, "No matter how well you argue, I am unreasonable on this point. You will never get me to give up on this point, even if you can make a great case for your side. Here is where, even if my intelligence fails, my emotions kick in and I will unapologetically bomb the snot out of you."

And that's GOOD, because people who have no line, no wall to place their back against, can be pushed all the way to the gulag.

Authentic is essentially what is according to that which the authors... authorized.

And what we have here is a few carefully selected snippets of what the authors "authorized", and an opinion of what it means. The authentic is that which the authors authorized, complete and in context. Reading this is not "studying the authentic" any more than reading a review is watching the movie.

21
posted on 05/02/2003 7:38:35 AM PDT
by tacticalogic
(Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)

This is what a vote is for. We should understand what it means to cast a vote. We lack true information.

There is a vast bureaucracy inside the beltway that has tasked itself with providing us with information, and have set themselves up as the arbiters of what "true information" is. These are the same bureaucracies that write the rules and regulations we live under, and provide our legislators with the information they use to pass laws that enable the regulators.

They will be the first to point to Washington's admonishments that we owe our allegiance and compliance to the government, and hold that as absolute.

38
posted on 05/02/2003 9:12:20 AM PDT
by tacticalogic
(Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)

People have to discern such things as virtue and principle and govern themselves by them.

What happens when bureaucrats and politicians discern virtue and principle differently than the people, and seek to govern others by them?

This is what a vote is for.

So when you said, "People have to govern themselves," you meant that the majority must impose its will on the minority. Funny how the founders placed such strict limits on what the federal government was allowed to do, majority vote or not.

39
posted on 05/02/2003 9:15:33 AM PDT
by MrLeRoy
("That government is best which governs least.")

It's amazing how many organizations with the words "freedom" and "liberty" in their names are actually very interested in curtailing freedom and liberty in the United States.

The words "God", "Jesus", "Christ" and "deity" appear nowhere in either the Declaration of Independence OR the Constitution. The word "Creator" appears in the Declaration of Independence. During the debate over the wording of the Declaration, a motion was made to add the words "our Lord, Jesus Christ" after the word "Creator".

It was defeated. What was that you were saying about our Constitutional liberty?

The words "God", "Jesus", "Christ" and "deity" appear nowhere in either the Declaration of Independence OR the Constitution.

Well, to be precise you are correct. But to be precise, just as they referred to "our Creator" in the Declaration, they referred to "our Lord" in the Constitution.

Just as this infers, their writings indicate that they attempted to establish government that was secular in nature, but which at the same time acknowledged God as did the People (and their God in fact, in the name of Jesus Christ who was "our" i.e., their Lord).

Article VII.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.

Go Washington - President and deputy from Virginia etc...

42
posted on 05/02/2003 11:31:19 AM PDT
by unspun
(It's not about you.)

In response to these rhetorical questions, I propose that liberty is not defined in a sentence, or as a rule -- Liberty is based upon certain principles -- the knowledge and application of which are required to fully comprehend and uphold liberty, respectively.

Yes, it is. I think it tends to stem from an inherent desire not to be accountable. (And so it is less missed, the next time I post a related article, I think I'll flag "News / Activism Free Republic" so it appears on the sidebar!)

43
posted on 05/02/2003 11:38:46 AM PDT
by unspun
(It's not about you.)

The impetus for my complaint is that unspun puts forward his spin on the rationale for the existence of man's rights. It annoys me that some religionists think it is their duty to teach us pagans about our rights. This evangelism becomes tiring for me after awhile.

Incidentally, what is the source for this article? I was unable to find it.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.